Ecclesiology Affirmed By Met. Cyprian (and ROCOR?)

[Justin Kissel]

Met. Cyprian and his ecclesiological position has been touched upon at the Cafe before, but I was curious if anyone (ie. someone under Met. Cyprian? ) could elaborate on a couple things about which a number of us have expressed our confusion. What I (and I know some others) are curious about is what Patristic and historic support the ecclesiology of Met. Cyprian has? Namely, where in the Fathers and in Christian history do we see 1) Heretics who cannot be considered to be condemned until a Church-wide Council condemns them; and 2) Heretics who have grace in sacraments? I think I've read just about every document of Met. Cyprian's which has been translated into English (which has found its way onto the internet, anyway), but I'm still left very perplexed...

[Anastasios]

Justin,

Why not buy the pamplets that his group has produced on this issue?

• A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resistance: The Writings of Metropolitans Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, Chrysostomos of Florina, and Cyril of Kazan

by Patrick G. Barker [Hieromonk Patapios]. Pp. 95.

The idea of resistance is crucial to the ecclesiology espoused by the moderate Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. In addition to the classic position paper on ecumenism by Metropolitan Cyprian, there are a reply to a vitriolic attack on the Old Calendarists by a New Calendarist clergyman, an article containing valuable quotations from the writings of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, vivid descriptions of the horrendous violence against the Old Calendarist Faithful, and five epistles by the New Martyr of the Communist Yoke, Saint Cyril of Kazan.
$4.00

---

• “Schism” or “Walling-Off”?: The Calendar Question and the Heresy of Ecumenism

by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. Translated by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and Hieromonk Patapios. Pp. 19.

An excellent, succinct defense, in the form of a pastoral letter, of what Saint Theodore the Studite called “God-pleasing resistance” against dogmatic deviations. Metropolitan Cyprian argues that the Church (“Old”) Calendar is part and parcel of Holy Tradition and proves that the calendar reform cannot be detached from the ecumenical movement. In the light of recent Church events, he also shows why genuine Old Calendarists cannot accept the “Uniate” solution devised by the Orthodox ecumenists in response to divisions in the Church.
$1.00

---

Resistance or Exclusion?: The Alternative Ecclesiological Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vresthene

Translated by Hieromonk Patapios. Edited by Archbishop Chrysostomos. ISBN 0-911165-46-0. LCCN 00-105041. Pp. 140.

A translation of four pivotal documents that helped shape the course of the Old Calendar movement in the Church of Greece, most of them appearing for the first time in English.
$7.95

http://www.sisqtel.net/~sgpm/ctos/Catal ... Page1.html

Total cost with shipping for you would be like 15 bucks. I know you have said you are having financial difficulties but when you are possibly deciding your eternal soul's destiny it might be worth it. (I'm not trying to be flippant or offensive, etc).

To me, Met Cyprian's ecclesiology might sound a little off but it's the best reflection of reality; if you blanketly say the New Calendarists are without grace, you have a real hard time explaining Elder Ephraim, Met Hierotheos, Fr John Romanides, Fr Arseny, etc.

anastasios

[Justin Kissel]

Well, I've read just about everything that Met. Chrysostom of Etna (and Bp. Auxentios) have had published (online), and like I said everything that Met. Cyprian has written (which has been translated into English). I've only seen one, or perhaps two, examples--and not very persuasive ones--that might address the questions I asked. If these pamphlets do indeed address my questions, I'd be glad to but them (eventually ). On the other hand, if they only go back over the information that I've already read, then I don't see much point in getting them. It seems like the whole case for Cyprianite ecclesiology is based on:

• A few words of Cyril of Kazan, written under intense and strange circumstances;

• A few words (taken in isolation) from the 7th Ecumenical Council; and

• A few words of Met. Chrysostom of Florina, disregarding what he said both before and after these words (ie. in 1935, and 1950--when he himself asked people to ignore what he had said in the years in between)

I guess I'm looking for a more persuasive argument than I've seen; or better yet, historical or patristic evidence that is more to the point (e.g., examples of Saint X saying that heretic Y has grace until a Council is called). I do appreciate your post, I hope you won't take this one as a "No way, I'm not gonna do it" type of response. If I do buy literature right now, though, I need to have a really pressing reason to

Regarding the names you mentioned... I think the problem of the heresy of ecumenism touches at least a couple of them... and that's definately not an area I'm about to speculate on